1. The instant petition under section 482, Cr.PC read with section 483, Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioner, Sri Ratan lal Banik, an accused, in GR Case No. 259 of 2009 under section 354, IPC, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Kamalpur, North Tripura, for quashing the order, dated 16.7.2011, (Annexure E), whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court rejected his prayer for further examination under section 313, Cr.PC, and also to quash the order, dated 22.7.2011, (Annexure G), whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court rejected the prayer of the petitioner, inter alia, to stop the trial of the case and also to place the aforesaid case record before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura for transferring the said case in any other court having jurisdiction.

2. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned P.P., In-charge of the case.

3. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken for disposal at the admission stage.

4. The factual matrix of the case is as under :

On 7.10.2009, one Sri Samir Ranjan Ghosh (PW1), lodged a written ejahar to the Officer In-charge, Kamalpur P.S. stating, inter alia, that on 3.10.2009 at around 10 p.m. when he went to his mother's homestead hut for taking Prasad of Laxmipuja keeping his wife alone in the room, at that time, the petitioner illegally entered into his house and kicked the door of the said room and kept shouted to his wife to open the door. When the wife (PW2) of the informant opened the door, the accused petitioner entered into the room and embraced his wife and started scuffling. Somehow his wife could set her free and thereafter started shouting to which the informant (PW1) returned to his house and detained the accused petitioner. Villagers also assembled there and found the accused petitioner there. Ultimately, the accused petitioner was released by the informant (PW1) as the village elders promised to him that they would settle the matter through Panchayat.

5. After completion of the investigation, the I.O of the case submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under section 448/356, IPC and the case being renumbered as GR case No. 259 of 2009 was placed for trial. During trial, charge was framed against the petitioner under section 354, IPC and the petitioner being asked by the trial court pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses including the I.O. It appears from the trend of the cross-examination that the defence case of the accused petitioner before the trial court was that he was falsely implicated in the case. The further case of the petitioner is that the prosecution witness, PW2, wife of PW2 (alleged victim) and her husband, PW1, the informant, PW4, Biplab Ghosh, brother in law of PW2, and PW7, Tapan Ghosh, another brother in law of PW2 were workers in the rubber plantation of the petitioner and they were regularly stealing latex from the plantation of the petitioner. And on 29.9.2009, the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were caught red handed while stealing latex from the rubber garden of the petitioner and in this regard, a village meeting was held on 30.9.2009 presided over by the Panchayat Member, Smt. Rita Ghosh and the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were called in the meeting, but they did not come in the meeting. Hence, the next meeting was fixed on 10.10.2009 by the villagers after preparing a written resolution of the meeting dated 30.9.2009. Getting the aforesaid information of the meeting, the informant (PW1) filed the instant case against the accused petitioner on 7.10.2004.

7. Further defence case of the petitioner is that on the night of Laxmipuja, the son of PW1 and 2, namely, Pinku was caught red handed by the petitioner while stealing coconut from the trees of the petitioner and Pinku was detained by the petitioner. Thereafter, PW1 and 2, i.e., th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document